Re: Adding linux_link(2) system call (Was: Re: link(2) on a symlink to a directory fails)

[David Holland <dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 11:17:46AM -0400, Mouse wrote:
 > >> If linux_link(2) seems unreasonable, it could be lazy_link(2),
 > >> weak_link(2), braindead_link(2) or whatever.
 > > You'll also need to update every filesystem to allow this and update
 > > all the various fsck programs to allow filesystems to be in this
 > > state.
 > 
 > Hardly.  The most that needs to be done to "every filesystem" is to
 > reject these operations.  The filesystem(s) that we want to support
 > hardlinks to symlinks can then be uptdated, one at a time, along with
 > their fscks.

Yeah, well, it adds up to the same thing.

 > > I'd disagree with this as it seems like a nonsensical thing to do.
 > 
 > Why?

Because symlinks are a special type of filesystem object with their
own semantics and for many purposes they're often not even directly
addressable.

Also, from a more operational standpoint, because there's no way to
update a symlink in place, so there's no difference between two
symlinks and two hard links to the same symlink except confusion and
the number of inodes used.

FWIW, I just asked some linux guys about the linux behavior and the
answer was "we sell rope".

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost